Monday, May 14, 2012

Sometimes we Latter-day Saints get too caught up with out day-to-day activities or with our own personal discontents and fail to appreciate just how marvelous the Restoration has been. Some aspects of the Restoration demand much more contemplation and study to realize how majestic and miraculous they are, but too often we take them for granted and see them as more human or random than they really are. Baptism for the dead is one of those unique fruits of the Restoration that really deserves a lot more respect, admiration, and contemplation. Toward that end, here are some great resources that can help us better appreciate the big picture and strengthen our appreciation of the marvels in our midst. Baptism for the dead is nothing to be embarrassed about (and nothing to fear, for those of you outside the Church), but is actually something to celebrate and marvel at.

137 comments:

An interesting non-LDS work is Michael Hull's "Baptism on Account of the Dead (1 Cor 15:29): An Act of Faith in the Resurrection." He endeavors to pin down vicarious baptism with the context of the early church. He of course mentions LDS beliefs about the rite and attempts to create a divide between the two practices. Still, an interesting work.

This is not so much an ancient Christian concept as it is an ancient Corinthian Christian concept (and Marcionite, sure, but they cut out a lot of the NT and claimed the OT God isn't the same as the NT one).

Putting it that way marginalizes the practice a bit, but it's not as misleading to people.

Your call. It's not as much of an issue as is the random baptisms of Anne Frank, where the church crosses an ethical line

I suspect that baptisms for the dead, while not entirely mainstream, would not fit into the category of "marginalized" since the epistle that Paul wrote was to the saints in Corinth, Greece. If Paul is writing to the Corinthians about this practice, then you could also assume that others knew about this practice as well. Also, Marcion came on the scene between 85 - 160 AD and was from Sinop, Turkey. While Sinop, Turkey was a Greek settlement, it is quite a distance away from Corinth. Furthermore, given the fact that the practice of baptisms for the dead had to be addressed at the Third Council of Carthage leads me to further believe that it was not necessarily marginal but a practice that had other early Christians wondering what this was all about.

While Mormons also believe that the for the majority of the time, the God of the OT is not the God of the NT, our view is drastically different than that of the Marcionites.

haha, CF. Nice moniker. I probably come across as closeminded, but it only seems that way because I approach things by questioning them instead of blindly accepting whatever was written a couple thousand years ago in a way that's interpreted a couple thousand years later.

So tell me, what exactly did Paul teach about it?

"Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?"

For such an important teaching, he doesn't tell any other church about it when referencing baptism. He mentions baptism plenty of other times, and whether explaining the theology behind it or praising a group of people for carrying it out, he never mentions why baptism for the dead is also worthy or why he's glad so many people are doing it.

So while you accept it as a commandment--which, let's face it, is mostly because of Smith instead of Paul--there's plenty of reason to believe this practice was 1) not known by a majority of early Christian populations, 2) practiced by even less people, and 3) is likely only a "commandment" because you personally believe it to be so. Just like Evvies out there believe it to be otherwise.

But feel free to pretend Paul commanded everyone to baptize the dead in a letter he sent to the church in Corinth that made an off-hand acknowledgement of a practice he never talks about or successfully spread, as an apostle chosen by Christ himself, to other churches.

Wow- Openminded- you nailed it. If baptism for the dead was so important, why wouldn't Jesus encourage such a practice? It's great that Jesus taught the importance of eternal marriage too...wait, he didn't.

Hi everyone! I just read D&C 127-128 and have a few questions that maybe someone here can answer.

First, I noticed that in the relevant D&C passages, Joseph Smith generally (but not always)refers to "our dead" rather than "the dead." To me this implies the need for Mormons to vicariously baptize their own ancestors, but not all of the dead. This is consonant with current Church policy, yet the previous policy was to baptize all. (And the current policy seems to be driven by the controversy over baptizing Holocaust victims, not by the language of D&C.)

So, what does D&C actually call for -- the baptism of all the dead who had no chance in life to receive the gospel, or the baptism only of Mormons' own ancestors?

My second question has to do with the consequences of vicarious baptism. As I understand it, if my dead Jewish mother were to be vicariously baptized, it would not mean she has become a Mormon; it would mean only that she has been gifted with the option of becoming one should she choose to do so.

This of course is a crucial point, for (at least to my mind) it adequately answers one of the key objections of vicarious baptism's critics. It would be quite objectionable for the Church to claim that Anne Frank has posthumously been made a Mormon, but I see nothing at all wrong with claiming she has been given the option of becoming one.

This distinction between--

a.) posthumous baptism as actual joining the Church, and

b.) posthumous baptism as merely creating an opportunity for joining the Church--

is crucial. But the distinction seems to be lost on much of the non-LDS public. This is understandable, I think, partly because in this world "baptism" always means a.) and not b.) It is only when baptism becomes posthumous that sense b.) arises.

Anyway, in D&C 128 Smith says of the dead that "their salvation is necessary and essential to our salvation, as Paul says concerning the fathers—that they without us cannot be made perfect—neither can we without our dead be made perfect."

Is Smith speaking here of all the dead, or only of "our dead," by which I take it he means the dead ancestors od Mormons?

If the former, the implication would seem to be that, in order for anyone to be saved, everyone must be saved, which entails that all those Holocaust victims who have been vicariously baptized must make the choice to join the Church, at least if anyone is to achieve salvation.

That seems a stretch. So maybe it's the latter. Maybe Smith meant only that salvation by vicarious baptism of one's own ancestors is necessary for one's own salvation. That makes sense, except that, if this is the case, why is the Church's genealogical archiving so eager to include everyone?

It would be the best doctrine in Christianity for saving the people who never had a chance in the real world. Back when I was a Christian, it was like hearing about the Holocaust numbers when I thought of all the people who were going to Hell. We were completely helpless to do anything about it.

And here's Paul, with arguably the most soul-saving doctrine in Christianity, and Jesus, and all the other Apostles, and none of them spread this beyond a passing, non-descriptive acknowledgement of the practice by one Apostle in one of his letters.

Listen to what you're saying. You're argument essentially is, "if we don't have a record of Jesus teaching it himself, we don't follow it". There goes half the New Testament; the need for calling of new Apostles, the doctrine of "laying on of hands" to receive the Holy Ghost, Sunday becoming the new meeting day, the church hierarchy's foundation on Apostles and Prophets and the importance on the body of the Church.

You throw out a lot of doctrine by your claim that Jesus need to have said it himself for it to be necessary. Furthermore, you literally break off the importance of a Prophet's voice, "Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets." (Amos 3:7).

What you are saying is that Paul's voice is -less- than Christ's even though he acted as His Post Resurrection spokesman.

You argue that for a doctrine to be followed, it must be followed by some sort of majority or widespread tradition. Do you think that the early Saints felt like their doctrines were "widespread" compared to the overwhelming number of pagan religions permeating all around them? If you believe in the divinity which brought for the Bible in its form today, if you believe that Paul was a true disciple of Jesus Christ, then no matter HOW small it's doctrine, it should be regarded as important.

You speak blasphemy of God's Holy Scripture. You are in danger of allowing the Devil to lead you. Repent and listen to God's Prophets, no matter how small and unpopular their voice may be or have ever been.

I am reminded of Joseph of Egypt, surrounded by criminals in prison and others tempting him to do evil. Daniel, who spent his time as a slave to the wickedness of the Babylonians, where he was commanded not to pray or to follow God. Even Paul and many apostles were completely alone in their travels among the gentiles.

When was the Gospel of the Lord ever popular or widespread? When was it "normal" to practice it? A Church with widespread support for anything has always been rare until the Restoration. That's part of the reason why the early Church fell into apostasy, too many disregarded the words of the Lord's disciples and fell away into Apostasy.

I happen to believe that what Paul spoke and what he wrote was inspired by God. Even without all the details, we know he spoke in the name of the Lord until he died. Even if he was the only one teaching a particular doctrine, it makes it no less important. If the the Prophet speaks today and nobody listens, does that make it any less crucial to our Eternal salvation? NO!

Humble yourself, seek out and put behind your weaknesses and those things that lead you away from the Lord. God seeks and cares for those who will submit themselves to his will and not the will of the world. He has blessed my life, even in the face of hardship, and I have felt His Spirit show me that it is His work.

No, my argument is: this highly important doctrine is highly suspect because it was acknowledged one single time in all of Paul's Epistles alone, and he didn't even spread it to other churches.

Nobody spread it to other churches.

The main issue being that somehow, while the Apostles were spreading Christianity--and particularly, baptizing people in the name of Christ, none of them mentioned baptism for the dead.

How could they hide it from the population?

You cite apostasy from the teachings of the Apostles. But every time Paul sent a letter to the churches to admonish them for straying from a certain path, he never reminds them to baptize the dead.

Take Thessalonians. The background of the first letter is a concern for the church's infancy, with their visit being mentioned during ch1-2. It was decided that Timothy would be sent to do a report on the church (3:2). Paul had given them commandments (4:2), and even references one which he says they have no need of being reminded about (4:9-10).

Even better, he starts talking about the dead (4:13). But only the ones who died in Christ--just forget those who don't, I guess (4:16). He goes on about the 2nd coming in the start of chapter 5, and up to this point, has still not mentioned how they should baptize for the dead--even though the Lord will come like "a thief in the night". We know what he means.

I don't even need to go into 2nd Thess, where he talks about the apostasy itself. Paul is either deliberately hiding the baptism of the dead from members (and not out of security, because the whole visit from Timothy was also about reassuring the church during times of persecution), or what?

Why is Paul hiding this doctrine from the church in Thessalonians when he was on the exact same subject that baptism for the dead is a part of?

Openminded is right- Jesus or his apostles (apart from the fleeting reference by Paul) didn't mention baptism for the dead because it's not important. Sorry, but there is no defense for the Mormon practice. None whatsoever.

Once you are dead, there is no second chance. Even the "most correct book on earth" says so in Alma 34:35 "For behold, if ye have procrastinated the day of your repentance even until death, behold, ye have become subjected to the spirit of the devil, and he doth seal you his; ...and this is the final state of the wicked."

Anonymous, that is a strawman. You waive your hand and dismiss Paul's statement. Yet you fail to see a couple things: first Jesus taught through the Mosaic Law in his lifetime. He was only beginning the work, which the apostles were to continue.Second, we have very little from the other apostles, and most of those books probably were not written by them, but by others later on.It also seems that baptism for the dead was a Gentile church event mostly, as the Jewish Christians tended to continue focusing on the Mosaic Law.That there are evidences of baptism for the dead suggest it may have been important for some, but not all the Christians.

What does the mosaic law have to do with baptism for the dead? Oh so Jesus really thought that baptism for the dead was so important that he didn't mention it at all? He was so concerned with mosaic law? Really? I'm laughing so hard I can barely type.

Christ's death and resurrection frees Christians from the condemnation of the law. Shouldn't the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints teach what Jesus taught? I mean, I would think so, but apparently not.

Let's not forget the roots of the Gentile: brought up in the religious creativity of paganism (Paul gives an example in 1 Cor 10:20).

I'm not a Christian, so my argument isn't that their practices originated from something inherently evil.

My argument is that there's evidence that the reason they practice baptism for the dead is not due to the teachings of the Apostles, but their own religious environment influencing a carry-over of the rituals.

You (Rameumpton) and CF will likely come back and say what's written is written, and that's a commandment, but you leave out all the other teachings in 1 Cor that were actually elaborated on significantly.

From part of 1 Cor. 11:2-16, we get this gem:"But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head, for she is one and the same as the woman whose head is shaved. For if a woman does not cover her head, let her also have her hair cut off; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, let her cover her head." This practice actually was widespread. Research it.

What was your qualification, CF? "If you believe in the divinity which brought for the Bible in its form today, if you believe that Paul was a true disciple of Jesus Christ, then no matter HOW small it's doctrine, it should be regarded as important."

Looks like I'm not the only one who's guilty of "blasphemy". Your church is just as guilty for not following what is today a very unpopular "commandment" from Paul.

What's so special about baptism for the dead, then, is Smith commanding it. Not Paul. You don't care about Paul. You're just looking for ways to confirm something Joseph Smith commanded. You use Paul and then toss him out when he's of no more use to Mormonism.

"But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head, for she is one and the same as the woman whose head is shaved. For if a woman does not cover her head, let her also have her hair cut off; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, let her cover her head." This practice actually was widespread. Research it.

What in the world are you talking about? We still follow this practice today. How many women do you know that go around with shaved heads?

And don't try to change the subject. Facts are facts. Baptism for the dead was a principle taught by the Apostle Paul. Again, IT DOES NOT MATTER how many people followed the practice - PAUL taught it. It should be followed. You think that Paul would make a passing reference if NOBODY else knew anything about it? The scripture itself presumes that a lot of people knew what he was referring to.

You, Closeminded, are taking away from the Bible. You pick and choose what suits you. You think that for a doctrine to be acceptable, it must be widely practiced for it to be obeyed. This is the Doctrine of Satan, not of God. Your definition of "obedience" is when it is popular. This is exactly what you're saying, is it not.

Finally, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is the ONLY true Christian church on the Earth today. It is the only Church that receives direct revelation from Jesus Christ. God has revealed much and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God. Joseph Smith actually LITERALLY saw and spoke to God and Jesus Christ. He literally translated an ancient record for our day.

Our living Prophet today receives revelation from God just as Paul did. Maybe you don't like that - too bad. The truth is the truth. Our gospel is closer to the original church than any other modern organization. So go ahead and throw out important commandments from God, it's to your own damnation.

By the way, Closeminded, if you're equating hair-coverings with baptism, the single most important ordinance for gaining eternal salvation, you're more lost than I realized. Got any more straw men to knock down?

Are you mistakening a head covering with hair? If so, re-research the practice. Hair is not a head covering. Mormon women don't cover their head when they pray in church. Mormons don't follow this practice. I've been to Sunday church and church at the Institute on a college campus. No woman walks into church with a head covering. But your issue here rises from not knowing what a head covering even is. That's likely because Mormons don't even teach the practice.

And as for importance, CF, I believe it was you that stated Paul was speaking from the Lord. If you're going to pick and choose your own "commandments", then realize you're also blaspheming the bible.

Isn't a commandment from Paul as important as the 10 commandments? Like you say they are?

I interpret the scripture as meaning, not shaving your head. Women should have hair on their head. You can interpret it how you want. And since you've admitted yourself that you're not a Christian, and thus do not have the Holy Ghost, you're not exactly the person who would understand the Bible anyway.

Again, a terrible comparison anyway. Do you believe hair-coverings are as important as baptism? That's what you're telling me by equating the two. By the way, Mormons do cover their heads in their temples for the most sacred of ordinances.

No, I would not call hair-coverings as important as the 10 commandments. But, unlike you, I most certainly believe baptism to be.

Well, this post has now devolved into nit picking. That Paul stated something and some want to either ignore it, or use diversions is a sad thing. The point is, Paul DID say something regarding baptism for the dead.If in his day, Paul also wanted women to cover their hair, that is his prerogative. That modern prophets can have a different dress standard today, makes that a meaningless straw man.

And since Mormons are the only Christians I know of that still DO actually cover their heads in a place of worship (temples), I guess that means we're still far closer to the one true church than the others, doesn't it? ;)

Again, what other straw men do you have? Let's go down the list so we can expose you a little more.

I'm just going with how the early Christian population interpreted and applied it. I don't pretend my personal interpretation is the only one that matters. There's a lot of evidence, in the writings of early church leaders and the Fathers, that this was the practice of the day.

My point with comparing baptism for the dead to head coverings is that both were mentioned in 1 Corinthians, but only one actually became a practice in the early church. Only one was accepted among the writings of the leaders and the early church Fathers.

And it was not the one that actually had something important to do with the salvation of others.

It was the one about head coverings.

And if you compare all the teachings in 1 Cor that Paul laid out, you even read about the spiritual gifts. In huge detail, including, even, a description of the process (not much of a process, but it's there). And same with his other teachings.

But baptism of the dead isn't taught. It's acknowledged as a practice.

The only reason it's a commandment in your religion is because of Smith. Otherwise, it'd be this obscure verse in a bible that the Marcionites--who don't help themselves when they rejected the gospels--followed, along with some people in the divided church of Corinth.

And CF, only the women are supposed to cover their heads. So, maybe half true? ;)

(there are other churches that practice this. honestly, just do a wikipedia search for a starting point at the very least)

"I mean, what's the whole point of even pretending anymore? This whole concept of Restoration of Ancient Christian Concepts is a red herring designed to appeal to other Christians.

In reality, anything goes."

Maybe in your own mind. But you still haven't proven anything yet! That's what's so funny with your argument. I showed you that the modern Church still follows Paul's words about head-dressings, not only do women not shave their head, but they wear them in the temple.

AGAIN, I ask, what other examples can you give me? Give up on the head-dressing thing. You've been shown you're wrong there. Give me something else.

And by the way, there is TONS and tons of evidence showing people practicing Baptisms for the dead throughout the early church, even well into the Catholic Church, until it was stopped during the dark ages.

Try using Wikipedia or Google, they're your friend here. That you fail to even see this evidence is stunning.

You see what you want to see, that's why you're closeminded. You've made up your mind about it and that's that. I'm just here to keep you honest.

"From Asia and Gaul has reached us the account [tradition] of a certain practice, namely that when any die without baptism among them, they baptize others in their place and in their name, so that, rising in the resurrection, they will not have to pay the penalty of having failed to receive baptism, but rather will become subject to the authority of the Creator of the World. For this reason this tradition which has reached us is said to be the very thing to which the Apostle himself refers when he says, "If the dead rise not at all, what shall they do who are baptized for the dead?"

I could give you more, Ambrose, Tertullian, Irenaeus, St John Damascene, Fulgentius - all the way through the Marcionite organization. This was widely practiced from St Paul all the way through the 7th century.

Your claim that it wasn't practiced is to completely throw out the facts. But my point is, a commandment by Paul, and Jesus Christ himself to require EVERYONE to be baptized does NOT REQUIRE a popular vote for it to be commanded. This is where you are oh so, so wrong.

I just find it hilarious that Mr Closeminded here has decided that certain ancient Christians were not part of the true fold of Christ. In his minuscule, tiny mind, he's decided that Corinthians were naughty and not to be trusted - forget that this was CORROBORATED with ST PAUL HIMSELF!!!

If we know for certain that Paul AND the Corinthian Christians were either recognizing or practicing baptism for the dead, and this practice was being done all the way through 7th century AD, call me crazy, but that should be good enough for anyone!

Dear god, CF. The church does not follow head coverings as stated in 1 Cor. It's laid out how to do so in the passage. Women cover their head for prayer. Men don't. So why do the men also cover their heads in temples? Why don't women cover their head during church like they're supposed to?

Because the church doesn't follow the practice outlined by Paul.

You can't accept that you're wrong here. You're literally blinding yourself to how wrong you are in this case.

I'll give Closeminded some credit though, at least many of the Anti-Mormons have stopped denying that Paul was talking about the practice of baptism for the dead as a reference to their own religious rite.

I remember on my mission years ago, the evangelical community would deny, deny, deny. They're still fighting the truth, but hey, at least we're making some progress here.

"The church does not follow head coverings as stated in 1 Cor. It's laid out how to do so in the passage. Women cover their head for prayer. Men don't. So why do the men also cover their heads in temples? Why don't women cover their head during church like they're supposed to? "

LOL, keep changing the subject there.

I've never seen a woman pray without her head covered, with hair or with something else. The passage doesn't specify whether or not your hair won't work as a covering. You're simply inserting words into the verse.

And where does it say that men must not cover their heads? Please cite me the scripture reference for that please.

But back on topic. What do you have to say about the evidence that early Christians (Corinthians or not) were practicing Baptism for the dead?

Ad hominem has defined part of your posts. Closeminded? really? you devolved into ad hominem with the very first word you typed in your very first post. It's irrelevant, so I ignore it, but it's there if you want to bring it up.

Here's your verse about men not supposed to be covering their head: (11:7) "For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God"

So now you admit it was widely practiced very early on, not only among the Christian Corinthians, but all the way down to the Marcionites? So tell me, who are you to say that they were doing wrong by following what Paul, disciple of Jesus Christ, had commanded? Does the commandment become any less important if a Marcionite follows it too? If a heathen partakes of the Sacrament, is the Sacrament voided?

"Then the soldiers, when they had crucified Jesus, took his garments, and made four parts, to every soldier a part; and also his coat: now the coat was without seam, woven from the top throughout." John 19:23

I think if Jesus wore a covering from "the top throughout", it's okay for men to wear one too. If it's between following Paul or Jesus, I'll go with the latter.

"But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering." 1 Corinth 11:15

No, I mean the source of my information that this was only about the Marcionites came from FAIR.

"All the way to down to the Marcionites" is a misleading statement. The Marcionites, founded by one guy who rejected the entire OT and a lot of the NT, is not representative as implied by your A to Z comment about being from the Corinthians to the Marcionites.

If Paul only discussed his commandment with one church, I'm saying it likely wasn't even a commandment at all. And if you compare how he mentions baptism for the dead with how he mentions the spiritual gifts, the covering of heads, how to be a loving person, etc, you find that baptism of the dead isn't similar at all in exposition.

If this is a commandment from Paul, and for one that has the importance of salvation attached to it, then why did Paul not go into greater detail? Is he more worried about fashion than salvation?

Or, as can be derived from the historical and contextual evidence, did he just acknowledge the practice without personally commanding it?

"And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also." - Matt 5:40

"Therefore that disciple whom Jesus loved saith unto Peter, It is the Lord. Now when Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he girt his fisher’s coat unto him, (for he was naked,) and did cast himself into the sea." John 21:7

For a man who supposedly told Paul for men not to wear coverings, he sure had a lot of disciples with coats and cloaks, don't you think?

long hair, and not all women have long hair. But the church doesn't test for this, because htey don't care about this commandment from Paul. And either way, men still wear head coverings in the temple, as Paul commands them not to.

If Jesus did wear a head covering while in prayer, then perhaps Paul was wrong about his commandments. And yet he still commanded men to not wear head coverings.

#1You're implying that the spiritual gifts and the head coverings are not commandments either - that's how you disregard Baptism for the Dead. Yet, I've just shown you that we follow the Bible exactly on head coverings.

So don't ignore what I just showed you to back up your claim that is now debunked.

#2

Like I said above, I don't give a flying fish if the Marcionite's practiced baptisms for the dead. IT DOES NOT MAKE IT ANY LESS IMPORTANT as you claim it should.

#3You miss the greater picture. The real commandment is BAPTISM. Period. Baptism is a commandment told throughout the entire New Testament. It is commanded that EVERY man must do it in order to be saved in the Kingdom of Heaven. So, yes, baptism of the dead, by extension is also necessary. Why should Paul have to explain the vicarious work of the same thing he's been expounding to everyone?

Can you (unlike our coward troll friend above) show me a verse that explains that baptism is not required for everyone? And that if someone fails to hear of the gospel, he is exempt from the law?

Now you're just moving the goal posts. First you claimed it must be a physical shroud, not you claim it's "long" hair. Nice try. You were right when you said not to listen to your own personal interpretation - because as we see here, it's full of holes.

"If Jesus did wear a head covering while in prayer, then perhaps Paul was wrong about his commandments. And yet he still commanded men to not wear head coverings."

So you're ready to throw out all his commandments because Jesus likely wore a hair covering? Wow, talk about a slippery slope.

What it DOES say is that commandments such as hair coverings are not set in stone. Prophets, through revelation, can change minor things like this.

But what does NOT change is the concept of baptism - that it is required for salvation - this was taught by Christ, his disciples, and by Paul. Baptism is required, just as Paul indicates, for those who have died without the knowledge of the gospel as well. No exceptions.

You do not follow the bible exactly on head coverings. Therefore, your entire argument about the importance of Paul is hypocritical. If Paul commanding head coverings is not important, then why should his other ones be?

Because Smith commanded them. That's the bottom line. Baptism of the dead is a subset of one group's practices of Early Christian groups. It's isolated. Why?

Because Paul didn't command it. He acknowledged its presence, and kept it at that. It's hardly an Ancient Christian practice beyond that and the Marcionites--who were a splinter group considered the gnostics that were very much in "apostasy" for rejecting half the bible

"You do not follow the bible exactly on head coverings. Therefore, your entire argument about the importance of Paul is hypocritical. If Paul commanding head coverings is not important, then why should his other ones be?"

I just did show that we do follow the Bible on hair coverings using scripture. Prove me otherwise as closeminded has failed to do, or bug off like you did before.

1) shorter-haired women don't use head coverings during prayer 100% of the time (and actually, looking back at the context in 11:13-15, he isn't specifically saying the hair was enough of a cover for prayer purposes, but that nature adorned women with long hair as a covering--"does not even nature teach you". I digress, though, because the point is made valid enough by citing women with short hair who aren't commanded by the church to cover their heads)

2) men cover their head during the temple process, completely going against Paul's commandment for men to not wear head coverings. Again: "For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God"

Like I said. Your church ignores an Ancient Christian Concept--one that was commanded to by Paul before the church went into apostasy.

And the irony is incredible, that your church is supposed to restore Christianity to what it was like before apostasy--and yet you reject following the commandments that were a part of the pre-apostasized church

"1) shorter-haired women don't use head coverings during prayer 100% of the time (and actually, looking back at the context in 11:13-15, he isn't specifically saying the hair was enough of a cover for prayer purposes, but that nature adorned women with long hair as a covering--"does not even nature teach you". I digress, though, because the point is made valid enough by citing women with short hair who aren't commanded by the church to cover their heads)"

Moving the goal post again. You already stated above that it must need be a physical covering, something other than hair. But now you change to "long" hair.

How do you define "long" hair? Longer than shaven? Longer than mens's hair? The scripture simply says, "long hair". I'll go with longer than shaven. That works for me.

And, other than for illness or factors out of her control, I'd like to see you give me evidence of a woman with an explicitly shaved head who is a Mormon in high standing with the church (temple recommend).

"2) men cover their head during the temple process, completely going against Paul's commandment for men to not wear head coverings. Again: "For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God"

And so did Jesus. Again, hair styles for men changed in the Bible, baptism as a requirement for salvation in the Bible never did.

Can I say we are following the New Testament exactly for both men and women for hair coverings? YES. Are we following the Bible on Baptism for the living and dead. YES.

CF,impressive point. That it has completely gone under the radar of even Mormon biblical scholars is something you might want to address to the Maxwell Institute.

Unless, of course, Jesus wasn't talking to dead people. Which he wasn't. And was he speaking about dead people? No. Does he mentioned dead people ever? Well, he raises someone from the dead, apparently. But he never baptized a dead person, expounded on how others should baptize for the dead, or otherwise even implied that baptism of the dead was something he even considered.

So I guess, if you're right about Paul commanding it, then he did so post-Jesus just like the head coverings.

Jesus commanded all people to be baptized as a requirement for salvation. Only you, closeminded, have inserted a disclaimer into the scriptures (Psst, they must be alive).

Paul simply points out the obvious to the Corinthians, because anyone with half a brain understood that Jesus and his disciples never excluded dead people from the commandment (as you are). Paul understood this, the Corinthians understood this, many people up until the 7th century understood this. Why can't you?

It's amazing the rhetorical summersaults the anti-mormons go through to deny baptism for all. When Jesus said his "Kingdom was not of this world", do these people honestly believe that baptism was not required there as well?

When Jesus visited the spirits of the dead between his death and Resurrection, do they honestly believe that suddenly baptism became "optional" for them?

"Moving the goal post again. You already stated above that it must need be a physical covering, something other than hair. But now you change to "long" hair."

The passage itself states a physical covering, but I'm just following your train of thought so as to not get caught up in what the passage actually says when I can find evidence against what you think it says anyways. The passage is very clear in distinguishing hair from coverings:

for context: "Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying disgraces his head."

"But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head"(hold up, women are prophesying? I thought only men could hold the priesthood in the true church. Anyways)

"Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?"

Is Paul only referring to women who are bald or women who have short hair but don't cover up? What a big mess for Paul just to say: women, grow your hair out so it serves as a covering.

But that's because he isn't saying hair is a head covering.

And you're not following the bible exactly if you're casting out what Paul said about hair coverings.

You pretend the commandment for men not to wear head coverings is cast out because Jesus didn't do it, and yet the commandment for women is supposed to remain? The men not having a head covering is central to the reason why women are supposed to have one:

"For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man."

You wish the church followed the bible on Paul's commandment.

But it doesn't, and therefore it doesn't fully restore the ancient christian concepts of pre-apostasy.

Which is where the irony comes in--because hey, Paul laid out baptism of the dead, you say! But let's forget that other concept he laid out, even though he said this bit: "But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man... Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying disgraces his head"

"I we can, at the very least, agree that Christians have it weird on baptism for the dead. I don't like the implications of those who don't have a chance ending up in Hell.

However, that's not a reason to suggest that Jesus was also talking about baptizing dead people. And if we put words into his mouth like that, then we could put a lot of words into his mouth"

That's not even their stance though. Most Christians believe that they're still saved by grace without baptism - ignoring Scripture that REQUIRES it for all men.

Who is putting words in his mouth? He simply said that baptism was required of everyone to enter the "Kingdom of God". Wouldn't it be a little absurd for Jesus to say that his "kingdom" is not of this world, but yet baptism is only good for -this- kingdom and not His kingdom?

Are not the spirits of both the living and the dead going to share a part in "His Kingdom"? It would be ridiculous not to believe so. That's why it's so simple to understand why Paul speaks of baptism for the dead in such a matter-of-fact way.

It's not that it "wasn't important enough to expound on it", but that it was SOOOO important, that everyone knew what he meant.

Say all you want about it being not needed, but I'm glad I'm erring on the side of Paul for baptism of all things. Hair coverings...not so much.

Then that would mean men always have their head covered, which is wrong during prayer and such.

If you want to pretend you can cop out of this dilemma by saying I was pussyfooting scripture, it doesn't work.

You're still caught in the dilemma of how men aren't supposed to be covering their head.

How exactly do men follow this requirement? You've laid out nothing other than "well Jesus covered his head, so there" and attempting to pretend the concept of head-covering was for the fashion of the day.

But Paul commanded men to not have their head covered during prayer because it was a disgrace to their head--which is Christ. The verses describing this are literally side-by-side: "But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man ... Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying disgraces his head" (11:3-4)

So here we are, with Mormon men covering their head in the temple--disgracing Christ because they completely ignore Paul's commandment.

How are men not covering their head? There's no getting around it.

Your own definition of hair being sufficient for coverage: "The scripture simply says, "long hair". I'll go with longer than shaven. That works for me."

So finally, we can reach a definitive conclusion that the Mormon church doesn't follow the bible on this one.

Men aren't exempt because of Jesus, and they certainly aren't exempt because men's hair fashion was different back in the day. The commandment was meant to avoid disgracing Christ.

And yet your church completely ignores it, which is wholly, unbelievably ironic considering you would instead opt to follow an obscure verse about baptism of the dead while forgetting about an entire passage based on not disgracing Christ.

And also, look at this verse: "For if a woman will not cover herself, then she should cut off her hair; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or to be shaved, she should keep it covered."

You want to make the claim that hair is a covering, and here's a good reason from this verse to not interpret it that way: the verse would instead be saying "if a woman will not cover herself [with hair], then she should cut off her hair."

You know Closeminded, you've gone back and forth so many times from "long hair" to a separate cover, I have no idea where you stand on it at this point. When I give you evidence of one, you go back to the other, when I give you evidence of the other, you go back again to the former.

You don't even know what the hell you're talking about and you lecture me about Mormons not following the Bible? You don't even know what you're arguing for anymore. Do us all a favor and quit.

I'll say it again, we follow the Bible as it is written. Jesus often wore a covering, this is pretty unanimous. Our active female members keep their hair long (you still gave me no evidence of the contrary btw) which is supported by Paul.

You keep on this hair issue because you can't defend this topic and would rather divert. Guess what, you're not fooling anyone and you make yourself look pretty desperate with a hair covering straw man trying to equate it to Baptism.

You're like every other anti-mormon, long in the bumbling, low on facts. I eat your kind for breakfast.

I gave you evidence of how your own interpretation that the cover is hair still means the Mormon church doesn't follow the bible, and I gave you the passage itself to see present what it said about the commandment.

And either way (by your own interpretation and by my own), the Mormon church fails to follow this commandment by Paul.

Instead of addressing the actual text, which insists that doing these things is a disgrace to Christ, you claim Christ not following a commandment that was not even intended for Jesus--but for the church of Corinth, just like baptism of the dead was--means we don't have to worry about it.

And that's exactly my point.

You can and do pick and choose commandments that were given to the Ancient Christian Church. Even when a certain commandment is issued so as to not disgrace Christ.

I gave you evidence of how your own interpretation that the cover is hair still means the Mormon church doesn't follow the bible, and I gave you the passage itself to see present what it said about the commandment.

And I asked you to show me evidence of an active member of the church who purposefully has shaved their head (barring reasons out of their control, sickness, etc).

I have shown how we DO follow the passage. How many times do I have to ask before you put up or shut up?

You should listen to yourself some time. This is a really embarrassing statement.

It's true. It's closeminded individuals like yourself that ignore centuries of evidence of early Christians practicing baptism for the dead that make me chuckle. It's closeminded individuals like yourself that claim that Jesus never wore a head covering. It's closeminded individuals like yourself that ignore passages stating that a covering a for a women can be her hair. It's closeminded individuals like yourself that try to equate head coverings as their straw man with the single most IMPORTANT ordinance of the Gospel, baptism.

"And I asked you to show me evidence of an active member of the church who purposefully has shaved their head (barring reasons out of their control, sickness, etc)."

According to your interpretation, then, men cover their head all the time.

And that just completely destroys whatever concept Paul was discussing in the passage (as in, this interpretation is false because otherwise men would always have to shave before praying--and that's not what he's saying at all).

But if you want to continue with your false interpretation, then you're hung up on the part where men disgrace Christ every time they cover their head during prayer.

Even with your false interpretation, the Mormon church does not follow this commandment that was given to the same church baptism for the dead was supposedly given to.

According to your interpretation, then, men cover their head all the time.

What are you talking about? The verse, in question, refers to women, not men. Paul says women can use long hair as a covering, it says nothing about men.

The Bible is clear that Christian men didn't always wear hair coverings, and long hair itself was fine as a covering for women. Comprende?

Last time I checked, that's how the modern Church of Jesus Christ does it today.

And that just completely destroys whatever concept Paul was discussing in the passage (as in, this interpretation is false because otherwise men would always have to shave before praying--and that's not what he's saying at all).

But if you want to continue with your false interpretation, then you're hung up on the part where men disgrace Christ every time they cover their head during prayer.

Even with your false interpretation, the Mormon church does not follow this commandment that was given to the same church baptism for the dead was supposedly given to.

The rest of your argument about my "false interpretation" is moot since neither I nor Paul are referring to men using long hair as a covering.

Again, still waiting for evidence of skin-head Mormon women. Any day now... ;)

" It's closeminded individuals like yourself that claim that Jesus never wore a head covering"

For one, the head covering is not supposed to be worn during prayer or prophesying, as stated in the passage. My point was not that jesus never wore a hood of some sort.

"closeminded individuals like yourself that ignore passages stating that a covering a for a women can be her hair"

That's because the interpretation doesn't fit what Paul wrote. I'll repeat them so you can address those verses this time, instead of just decided that your word is all that matters:

11:5-- “but any woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered disgraces her head--it is one and the same thing as having her head shaved.”

11:6-- “For if a woman will not cover herself, then she should cut off her hair; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or to be shaved, she should keep it covered." so how does your interpretation work when Paul suggests a woman to cut off her hair if her head isn't covered? that's like saying "if she doesn't have hair on her head, then she should cut off her hair". doesn't work here.

11:7-- “For a man ought not to cover his head . . .” cover his head, just like a woman is supposed to cover her head. Is a man not allowed to not have hair on his head?. doesn't work here either.

11:13-- “Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?” as in bald? which, according to your interpretation, is what this verse could only mean. Because, I guess, the style of women was to not have hair back then.Doesn't work here.

And so, since I'm so "closeminded", how exactly are these verses supposed to suggest that long hair is enough for a head covering? Or is it you who are closeminded, because you realize the bottom line of my argument is that the church doesn't follow a pre-apostasy doctrine that's designed to not disgrace Christ?

Go ahead and prove your ability to "eat my type for lunch" (which, dear lord, is a punch line that should remain in teenage superhero cartoons, and not a blog for religious discussion)

For one, the head covering is not supposed to be worn during prayer or prophesying, as stated in the passage. My point was not that jesus never wore a hood of some sort.

#1 You're wrong.(11:7) "For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God."

Where does it state that it is only during prayer or prophesying.

#2Without any evidence, you claim that Jesus always took off his hair covering during prayer and prophesying. How can you know that?

You can claim all day long that a women needed something more than hair to cover her head with using verses 5-13, but I'm going to throw back at you 1 Corinth 11:15:

"But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering."

You say I pick and choose, but yet you ignore this other Scripture. So as far as I'm concerned, from the words of St Paul, the modern Church of Jesus Christ is pretty well "covered".

Now where is that evidence of skin head Mormon women we're all waiting for? And what about the topic of Baptism for the Dead? Or is the hair-covering all you got left, so you'll keep arguing that dead horse ad nauseum?

The point I've been making is that minor principles like hair coverings, etc can change. The rules of the law of Moses changed when Christ came, and even then, more things changed after the Resurrection.

But baptism? You're trying to argue that since some principles changed from Jesus to Paul, that importance of baptism for as a requirement for all men was lost? That's crazy. It's a terrible, terrible argument to use for why baptism isn't necessary.

Here's a question: Are my chances of eternal damnation greater for following a practice (baptism for the dead) that Paul taught about, and many early Christians followed, or by not following it? Would it not be better to be safe than sorry?

You say that we simply defend Joseph Smith because he made this all up, yet is it not a better position to be in to HAVE the doctrine?

I think you have it backwards, I think you are simply justifying your own remorse for having been led away from the Christian faith. You only wish other Christian faiths had the doctrine of baptism for the dead, but since they don't you have to come up with these crazy arguments to justify why they don't.

You can "leave it", but you just can't "leave it alone" can you? And I know that fact bothers you to no end.

A lot of your interpretation relies on missing context clues, leading you to false conclusions.

Where does it state that it is only during prayer or prophesying.

Reread the passage, starting at 11:4."Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying disgraces his head."Verse 7 follows as an elaboration.

but I'm going to throw back at you 1 Corinth 11:15:

"But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering."

This is where your hypocrisy for calling out closemindedness sets in.

Are you saying Paul was addressing an issue in which the females were shaving their heads bald all the time so as to not cover their heads?

This is entirely nonsensical.

So is saying "if she doesn't have hair on her head, then she should cut off her hair", as this would be saying in verse 11:6.

You're so close minded that you can't even accept that hair is not a head covering, and so you make out Paul to be this idiot who thinks women shaving their head of all their hair is an actual issue in the church.

Do you see how what you're saying means Paul is addressing, at length, the issue of women shaving their head bald?

That makes no sense, and doesn't even fit in with what Paul wrote.

The alternative interpretation of 11:15 takes into account that that verse is part of a larger sentence:

"Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him, 15 but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her? For her hair is given to her for a covering."

Paul is saying that even nature understands that women need a natural covering for their head, so of course "the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head" (11:10) during prayer and prophesying.

He's not saying the issue is taken care of, "so just be sure to stop shaving your heads all the time".

Or are you still too close minded to see that your interpretation is ridiculous and paints Paul out to be a complete idiot, worrying about women shaving their head all the time?

Are my chances of eternal damnation greater for following a practice (baptism for the dead) that Paul taught about, and many early Christians followed, or by not following it? Would it not be better to be safe than sorry?

Here's the issue. I'm not arguing for how necessary this and that is, how I wish the Christian faith I've left could use some improvements, or anything related to how great your chances for eternal damnation are.

I don't even believe in eternal damnation. To me, it's an invention of the mind that has the unfortunate side effect of leading people to believe religious doctrine is true because "well, what about all the people going to hell?"

I was universalist before I left the church. Isn't that the best way to go? Everyone is saved anyways?

Wouldn't it be best for Smith to invent that kind of a doctrine?

I was led away from the Christian faith because it has a lot of the same issues I found Mormonism to have. It's a long story, but I don't care at all that the faith I left (which was universalist by the time i left it anyway) has a particular understanding of baptism that you don't agree with.

I can't leave it alone, though, because heck. I spent the last 3 years learning this stuff, and it's enjoyable to point inconsistencies out to people through debate. I keep it online in blogs like this where people understand this isn't me trying to be a jerk about it.

Meant to add--I'm bothered about it from time to time (the fact that I have a hard time leaving it alone), but we have a hard time leaving TV and a lot of other seemingly no-reason-to-do-this things alone as well.

It bites at me just as much as wasting my time on tv does--which is just enough to not make it an intrusion to more purposeful things.

I think it's funny how you assume all of your church's critics have the same little psychological portfolio.

I'll give you one last shot, Closeminded, to put up the evidence that the modern Church of Jesus Christ does not follow the Bible on the matter of hair coverings.

#1I have never in my life seen an active male member of the church pray or prophecy wearing a head covering (Yes this includes inside the walls of the temple). As a boyscout I do remember times that other LDS boys would forget to remove their hat for saying a prayer, but they would always be reprimanded for it afterward.

#2I have never in my life seen an active female member of the church pray or prophecy with short or shaved hair unless it was for factors out of her control (sickness, surgery, hair-loss, etc).

Can you put up some real hard evidence to show the contrary? The burden of proof is on you.

Your interpretation of the female requirements is completely wrong. Let's go through this verse by verse very slowly so you can follow along:

5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head:

Okay, great! What is the definition of a "head uncovered"?

for that is even all one as if she were shaven.

Okay, we still don't have an answer as to what it means to have a "head uncovered". All we have so far is the condemnation of a woman who prays or prophesieth with her head uncovered.

Paul says that if her head is uncovered it is the same as if she were "shaven". Great so shaven is the same thing as being uncovered.

6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.

Okay, here we still don't have a definition of what the "cover" can be. Paul merely states that if she is not covered (whatever "covered" means), she had might as well be shorn (another word for shaven).

15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.

Finally, we have a definition for what it means to be covered for a woman: her hair. Note that Paul only says "long hair" is a "glory to her". The requirement is NOT long hair. "Her hair" is the only requirement as the covering in the last part of the verse.

Get it now?

So again, I pose my challenge to you:

#1I have never in my life seen an active male member of the church pray or prophecy wearing a head covering (Yes this includes inside the walls of the temple). As a boyscout I do remember times that other LDS boys would forget to remove their hat for saying a prayer, but they would always be reprimanded for it afterward.

#2I have never in my life seen an active female member of the church pray or prophecy with short or shaved hair unless it was for factors out of her control (sickness, surgery, hair-loss, etc).

Can you put up some real hard evidence to show the contrary? The burden of proof is on you.

Great, now let me get your interpretation down just to be sure we're on the same page. Then I'll go over your challenge in this same comment, assuming I got your interpretation correct.

So you're saying Paul is defining hair as being the cover, and that his issue here, then, is that females are going around with uncovered (read: shaven) heads?

Now let's use your definition of "covered" in this verse + interpretation you reveal to me:"6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.

Okay, here we still don't have a definition of what the "cover" can be. Paul merely states that if she is not covered (whatever "covered" means), she had might as well be shorn (another word for shaven)."

Well we might as well fill in the new definition now. here we go:"For if the woman be not [with hair on her head], let her also be shorn".

Do you see the dilemma here? How can a woman without hair be shorn?

You remind me of a trinitarian. "Oh yes, Jesus is God. And yes, Father God is God. But no, Jesus is not Father God" what?! How does that even work?

But for that matter, how can a woman shorn her head if it's uncovered (which, according to your definition, means she doesn't have hair on it).

How does this interpretation of hair being a cover fit? Unless you're entirely wrong about verse 15, and there's plenty of reason to believe you are (unless all the early Christian churches, the church Fathers, and etc have all interpreted this passage incorrectly. in which case, you should at least go back in time to tell the church fathers how wrong they were about their interpretations before they wrote about this widespread practice of covering heads).

So your #2 challenge is on the line, because you have a glaring contradiction in verse 6 where a woman is apparently supposed to shorn her already-shorn head. Which isn't possible.

But your #1 challenge is absolutely hilarious:I have never in my life seen an active male member of the church pray or prophecy wearing a head covering (Yes this includes inside the walls of the temple). As a boyscout I do remember times that other LDS boys would forget to remove their hat for saying a prayer, but they would always be reprimanded for it afterward.

Haha, wow. all of a sudden, you found a definition of head covering. Geeze, it's like you couldn't accept it in the woman's case because if you did, it'd be completely obvious the the Mormon church doesn't follow this practice at all. Tell me, how did you come up with this "head covering" definition all by yourself? It's not "defined" in the passage, apparently. Of course, I'm sure Paul assumed people would know what a head covering is, but that hasn't stopped you from defining it as hair for women.

How did you get this definition for men? That's just really, really telling.

And I don't know. Maybe you guys don't pray when you go into your temple. But you revealed that women cover their heads when they go in, and a quick research from Mormon websites tells me this isn't a gender-specific practice.

So it looks like men cover their heads in the temple. Which is weird, because you arrived at this definition of head covering on your own. What's going on here? Have you been too closeminded this whole time to accept that a head covering is simply not hair?

You have a glaring contradiction in a bible verse where women are supposed to shave their already-shorn head, and then you go on defining head covering for men to be what any normal person would consider a head covering to be: something, other than hair, that covers the head.

If this is how you approach your anti-mormons, I get the feeling your sense of victory is coupled with a high degree of ignorance as to what you actually accomplished.

"For if the woman be not [with hair on her head], let her also be shorn".

Paul is using an equivalency here: He's saying, "if she's not going to have hair, then let her stay that way".

THE ONLY verse which describes the type of covering required for a woman is verse 15, genius. I'm begging you, show me the line that says what kind of covering is needed, if not her own hair? Please, Closeminded, please try for us.

(unless all the early Christian churches, the church Fathers, and etc have all interpreted this passage incorrectly. in which case, you should at least go back in time to tell the church fathers how wrong they were about their interpretations before they wrote about this widespread practice of covering heads).

Ok, I gotta laugh at this. All the "early churches"? Do you know what you just said? Citing examples from the "early churches" means we've already arrived into the apostasy of it. You're now trying to say that the restored church has to mimic all of the apostized churches? Seriously?

And I don't know. Maybe you guys don't pray when you go into your temple. But you revealed that women cover their heads when they go in, and a quick research from Mormon websites tells me this isn't a gender-specific practice.

What's your point? The scripture only states that men should not cover their heads when praying or prophesying.

You have a glaring contradiction in a bible verse where women are supposed to shave their already-shorn head, and then you go on defining head covering for men to be what any normal person would consider a head covering to be: something, other than hair, that covers the head.

If this is how you approach your anti-mormons, I get the feeling your sense of victory is coupled with a high degree of ignorance as to what you actually accomplished.

Now you're just stalling. So again, I pose my challenge to you:

#1I have never in my life seen an active male member of the church pray or prophecy wearing a head covering (Yes this includes inside the walls of the temple). As a boyscout I do remember times that other LDS boys would forget to remove their hat for saying a prayer, but they would always be reprimanded for it afterward.

#2I have never in my life seen an active female member of the church pray or prophecy with short or shaved hair unless it was for factors out of her control (sickness, surgery, hair-loss, etc).

Can you put up some real hard evidence to show the contrary? The burden of proof is on you.

" The scripture only states that men should not cover their heads when praying or prophesying."

I guess men don't pray in the temple. My apologies, I don't know what goes on in there. I just assumed they'd be praying in a temple. Anyways.

"You're now trying to say that the restored church has to mimic all of the apostized churches? Seriously?"

Hey, you know. Those apostasized churches still believed in Jesus, too. You gonna quit that practice because apostasized churches believe in it?

No, and that's not my point. My point is that nobody took this to mean that hair was a covering. Even the ones who mentioned the Marcionites baptizing for the dead.

Finally, you have the most laughable interpretation I've seen in my life.

"Paul is using an equivalency here: He's saying, "if she's not going to have hair, then let her stay that way".

Just oh my god, the irony of what you said.

"If she's not going to have hair, then let her stay that way."

WHAT?? But then it's not COVERED!

You just completely cornered yourself on this one. Literally. You just checkmated yourself into saying your interpretation falls on itself. If she's not going to have a cover, then let her stay that way?

This is what closemindedness looks like. When it produces such interpretations like yours that are the epitome of contradiction, and you can't even admit it. Heck, you can't even see it. Do you even see your own glaring contradiction there? And how it completely invalidates your interpretation as hair being a covering?

I guess men don't pray in the temple. My apologies, I don't know what goes on in there. I just assumed they'd be praying in a temple. Anyways.

Glad you've admitted you're wrong. Those that do, do not wear head coverings.

Hey, you know. Those apostasized churches still believed in Jesus, too. You gonna quit that practice because apostasized churches believe in it?

Oh gosh...so simply because they believe in Jesus, you're saying the restored Church has to follow every one of their practices? Wow, guess you need to do your research a little more, Closeminded. The Church of Jesus Christ RESTORES the ORIGINAL, SINGLE, Church of Jesus Christ as it was just after Jesus founded it and for less than a century thereafter. Try doing some research before telling me what we're supposed to be restoring. LDS.org might be a good place to start. The internet is pretty big Closeminded, it doesn't only consist of this site.

Still, you need to show me where it explains that a hair covering for a woman is anything other than her hair as explained in verse 15. Still waitin for that one... ;)

No, and that's not my point. My point is that nobody took this to mean that hair was a covering. Even the ones who mentioned the Marcionites baptizing for the dead.

Hey, the Marcionites got Baptism for the Dead right and hair coverings wrong. What can I say? ;)

"If she's not going to have hair, then let her stay that way."

WHAT?? But then it's not COVERED!

Paul is talking about a PUNISHMENT, Einstein! If the woman is going to shorten her hair too much, then she will keep it short as a punishment.

You just completely cornered yourself on this one. Literally. You just checkmated yourself into saying your interpretation falls on itself. If she's not going to have a cover, then let her stay that way?

This is what closemindedness looks like. When it produces such interpretations like yours that are the epitome of contradiction, and you can't even admit it. Heck, you can't even see it. Do you even see your own glaring contradiction there? And how it completely invalidates your interpretation as hair being a covering?

I bet you don't, you're just that closeminded.

Again, you're stalling.So again, I pose my challenge to you:

#1I have never in my life seen an active male member of the church pray or prophecy wearing a head covering (Yes this includes inside the walls of the temple).

#2I have never in my life seen an active female member of the church pray or prophecy with short or shaved hair unless it was for factors out of her control (sickness, surgery, hair-loss, etc).

Can you put up some real hard evidence to show the contrary? The burden of proof is on you.

"Paul is talking about a PUNISHMENT, Einstein! If the woman is going to shorten her hair too much, then she will keep it short as a punishment."

Wow. You are that closeminded.

So the women are deliberately punishing themselves?

That must have been a hot issue. "Hey women doing something to yourself that you yourself don't like doing, quit that or keep your short hair as punishment for having short hair!"

Let's see how fully this interpretation falls in on itself, and see if you just keep proving how closeminded you are:

"But every woman who has her head [shaved] while praying or prophesying disgraces her head, for she is one and the same as the woman whose head is shaved. 6 For if a woman does not [have hair covering her head], let her also have her hair cut off [once again, you can't shave hair off that isn't there]; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, let her cover her head [but she doesn't want hair in the first place because she shaved it off, so why would she consider it a disgrace]. 7 For a man ought not to have his head covered [what, with hair? that's the definition you gave it, and if it's not hair, then we have a different definition of head covering that is usable for women], since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man."

Once again, Paul wants women to have their head covered. What in dear god do you actually believe, that women were shaving their heads at the church of corinth? that is the most ridiculous thing possible, you have got to be kidding me.

But anyways, his punishment for them shaving their head....is for them to continue shaving their head.

Do you believe this? This is actually what you mean to say? That women were having a head-shaving problem, and the punishment for this problem was to keep their heads shaved?

You are saying that what Paul said is not sufficient. By your further so-called, interpretation and deduction, you claim there is something beyond hair.

I think at this point you are adding things to the Bible that aren't there. Verse 15 says, "hair" is the "covering". Period. End of story. Unless you can provide explicit text that indicates hair isn't enough, then you're simply making things up.

Now quit your dodging, ducking and stalling and answer the question:

#1I have never in my life seen an active male member of the church pray or prophecy wearing a head covering (Yes this includes inside the walls of the temple).

#2I have never in my life seen an active female member of the church pray or prophecy with short or shaved hair unless it was for factors out of her control (sickness, surgery, hair-loss, etc).

Can you put up some real hard evidence to show the contrary? The burden of proof is on you.

Ha, well. It appears that you are the one dodging and ducking, afraid to answer to the reality of your interpretation:

"That women were having a head-shaving problem, and the punishment for this problem was to keep their heads shaved."

"6 For if a woman does not [have hair covering her head], let her also have her hair cut off [once again, you can't shave hair off that isn't there]"

Adding things to the bible that aren't there? I'm just putting in hair where covering is, and seeing where that leads us.

Which is directly to a contradiction that you wish didn't exist because you can't explain it.

You just want to close your eyes and pretend everything works out, when it doesn't.

And besides, you give the definition in your first challenge:"I have never in my life seen an active male member of the church pray or prophecy wearing a head covering..."

So there we have it. A definition for head covering, provided by none other than you yourself.

Are you ready to quit your ducking and dodging now, and answer to the implications of your interpretation + the fact that you seemed to have defined head covering meaning something other than hair in your first challenge?

"6 For if a woman does not [have hair covering her head], let her also have her hair cut off [once again, you can't shave hair off that isn't there]"

Adding things to the bible that aren't there?

Yes.

So there we have it. A definition for head covering, provided by none other than you yourself.

Since the scriptures don't provide a clear and concise definition of a head covering for males, I guess Paul assumed we'd know what that meant, or at least allow us to interpret it.

But that is NO evidence that we are not following Paul's commandment in the modern Church of Jesus Christ as far as it is written. Because technically we are, with as much information as was given, the interpretation left up to us - those with the Holy Ghost led by a Prophet of God.

But in the case of females, it is clearly defined: hair.

So again, answer the question and quit making yourself look like an inept closeminded fool:

#1I have never in my life seen an active male member of the church pray or prophecy wearing a head covering (Yes this includes inside the walls of the temple).

#2I have never in my life seen an active female member of the church pray or prophecy with short or shaved hair unless it was for factors out of her control (sickness, surgery, hair-loss, etc).

Can you put up some real hard evidence to show the contrary? The burden of proof is on you.

"6 For if a woman does not [have hair covering her head], let her also have her hair cut off [once again, you can't shave hair off that isn't there]"

Adding things to the bible that aren't there?

Yes."

Adding things from your interpretation. That you fail to see this is because you can't accept the outcome of your own interpretation--that would just be too devastating to your ego.

You haven't owned up to your interpretation just yet, are you saying there was an issue at the church of Corinth where women were shaving their hair, and the punishment for them doing so, was to continue shaving their hair?

So I posed a question for you, instead of answering, you are posing a question to me. This is a common debate tactic to indicate when someone is dodging.

I'll answer it anyway. I'm not a close-minded, coward like you are.

You haven't owned up to your interpretation just yet, are you saying there was an issue at the church of Corinth where women were shaving their hair, and the punishment for them doing so, was to continue shaving their hair?

My answer: I don't know. Neither do you, for sure. Perhaps they had cut it very short, too short for Paul's liking. All I or you should go by is the scripture that says, and it says that all is required for a covering is "hair", and that Paul even prefers "long hair".

Chalk it up to a contradiction. You like what your verse says, I like what mine says. Both seem equally valid - but to agonize over it like you do, equating it's gravity to BAPTISM, a requirement for Heaven itself is absolutely silly.

Now I've answered your question. Answer mine, or admit that you have no evidence:

#1I have never in my life seen an active male member of the church pray or prophecy wearing a head covering (Yes this includes inside the walls of the temple).

#2I have never in my life seen an active female member of the church pray or prophecy with short or shaved hair unless it was for factors out of her control (sickness, surgery, hair-loss, etc).

Can you put up some real hard evidence to show the contrary? The burden of proof is on you.

You "don't know" that the corinthians had a head-shaving problem, and that their punishment for shaving their head was to keep their short hair. But the text says it according to your interpretation.

You "like" your interpretation? The one that contradicts itself?

No, you don't like what it means to be wrong on this one. It means the church isn't following the commandment. You can't accept that, and so you do mind-flips to explain how "For if a woman does not [have hair covering her head], let her also have her hair cut off" is possible when it's not.

You're afraid, and so you pretend there's a problem in which women decided to go bald and stay bald--and the punishment for doing so was to keep them bald, which goes against the entire point of covering their head.

This is full of nonsense, but if that's what it takes to defend your church's image, you're willing to do it.

That is being closeminded. And cowardly.

I lose nothing if I'm wrong, but I'm not wrong on this one--else Paul is an idiot who contradicts himself, or at least sees an issue where women are shaving themselves, and thinks keeping them the way they want to be is a punishment.

Admit it. This is the most ridiculous thing you've heard of, and you're trying to avoid this because it makes your challenge look like a silly diversion that says "I know I'm right, even though what I believe i right makes Paul look insane and admits to a conclusion that is utterly ridiculous"

See, I can do that too. How fun. But, I have the edge since I am still a Christian, still have the Holy Ghost with me and my interpretation has a little more weight than your heathen interpretations.

Why don't you just admit that the modern Church of Jesus Christ follows the ancient doctrine of hair coverings pretty darn close. You've already admitted it for males, and we have scripture blatantly described by Paul that "hair" is defined as the covering for women.

Seriously, just admit you have no evidence for the contrary. And admit that your argument against Baptism for the Dead, that we don't follow Paul's hair covering doctrine, is simply untrue.

Why don't you move on to something else? This is getting stale. Give me something else to pound you with. Surely you've got something more than hair coverings to debunk baptisms?

Let's go down the list of the number of times Jesus and his disciples mentioned the requirement for baptism for entrance to Heaven. That sounds like fun. I'm just getting warmed up.

You kidding? For the church to follow this commandments, your interpretation must be true. And if your interpretation is true, we have Paul on record addressing a problem in which the women at the church of Corinth were shaving their heads bald! And to punish them for doing so, he commanded them to stay bald!

It's blog post time, I don't need to waste myself on a rehashed argument about baptism that's as old as the faith vs. works doctrine. I have to inform the public about this historical finding about bald women in the church of Corinth, and how much of an idiot Paul was when dealing with them!!

You kidding? For the church to follow this commandments, your interpretation must be true. And if your interpretation is true, we have Paul on record addressing a problem in which the women at the church of Corinth were shaving their heads bald! And to punish them for doing so, he commanded them to stay bald!

Those are your words not mine, and and not Paul's. You can choose to ignore Paul's words that "hair" is the definition of being a "covering" for women if you want. That's your choice.

It's blog post time, I don't need to waste myself on a rehashed argument about baptism that's as old as the faith vs. works doctrine. I have to inform the public about this historical finding about bald women in the church of Corinth, and how much of an idiot Paul was when dealing with them!!

Then run away with your tail between your legs, you closeminded coward.

Lol, that's the implications of your interpretation, CF. When you exchange "cover" for "hair", then according to your own words: "Paul is talking about a PUNISHMENT, Einstein! If the woman is going to shorten her hair too much, then she will keep it short as a punishment."

Truly, that this is the length you'll go to defend your church, is completely hilarious.

Oh come back for more huh?! If you're going to run off, then be a man and run off.

Lol, that's the implications of your interpretation, CF. When you exchange "cover" for "hair", then according to your own words: "Paul is talking about a PUNISHMENT, Einstein! If the woman is going to shorten her hair too much, then she will keep it short as a punishment."

Truly, that this is the length you'll go to defend your church, is completely hilarious.

I think it's pretty hilarious that you think that Paul isn't talking about shorning the hair as a punishment. It's pretty obvious that he's saying, "if they have broken the cover [ie no longer have hair or long hair], then for a punishment, they will have their hair cut short."

"For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn:"

How else do you interpret that other than she's being punished for not being covered??? You're delusional.

"Ask Paul, he's the one that said that hair was the only requirement for a covering for a woman when praying and prophesying."

LOL, you are kidding. This is your answer? So when some of the female population of the church decided to shave their heads out of their own free will (enough to warrant a full-on passage by Paul telling them not to do so), Paul responded by telling them to shave their own heads of the hair they don't even have.

The material you're giving me is 100% gold.

That you fully believe it as well is absolutely hilarious.

I'll probably respond to whatever replies you have, but as for discussing this subject, I'm good here if you are. Thanks for your hilarious insight

So when some of the female population of the church decided to shave their heads out of their own free will (enough to warrant a full-on passage by Paul telling them not to do so), Paul responded by telling them to shave their own heads of the hair they don't even have.

When did that happen? You have evidence of this? Is this scripture of Closeminded now?

The difference here is that I'm going by what is given: an adequate cover for women is their hair. You've decided to disregard that half of scripture and go with the other to suit your own needs.

You are so desperate to make the claim that we should dump Baptism for the Dead, that you are willing to throw out entire passages of scripture to make it fit your narrative.

Think about this, in the time that this thread was started, your original argument was, "well it wasn't widespread enough". I proved you wrong, so you dropped it. Then you gave up the covering issue for males when you admitted you were wrong and you couldn't prove it. Now, you're clinging like a scared child to the female thing even though I've gone over this with you that the only requirement that Paul gave was "have hair".

You're flailing, you're throwing anything at the wall to see what will stick. When I prove you wrong, you move the goal posts again. When I prove you wrong on the female issue, you hold your ground against all evidence.

I've knocked you out 3 for 3 now. You're bound to give up ground here in a minute, based on your weak knees with your earlier assertions. You've already tried to run off, before you came running back. You're on your heels right now.

Give. It. Up. Move on to something else to discredit Baptisms for the Dead. You've lost. Anyone with half a brain can read this thread and see where you've given up ground.

Change the topic or run off to your blog where you can only hear yourself talk and nobody will disagree with you.

"When did that happen? You have evidence of this? Is this scripture of Closeminded now?"

Lol, knocked me out 3 for 3? Eat me for breakfast, did you?

No, this is the scripture implied by your interpretation. If you don't like it, you can change your interpretation--but it's pretty clear when you insert hair for cover, as you said, " If the woman is going to shorten her hair too much, then she will keep it short as a punishment."

and that they need to shave their shorn head as a punishment. I mean really, that you can't see this is making my day.

Textbook religious approach--deny everything that doesn't go how you want it to.

Maybe you can't see it now. perhaps you should take a break and come back later. It'll be here, and definitely on my blog

Listen to yourself, you're hanging the credibility of Baptisms for the Dead on women's hair shaving!

So this is the new argument for the Anti-Mormons: "Baptisms for the Dead is heresy because women can't shave bald hair! Hah! We got these Mormons now!!".

You know, Closeminded, you really crack me up. No really, go with that argument, go tell all your anti-mormon friends that you just KNOW Baptism for the Dead is false because women can't shave bald hair. I'd love to see their reaction to that.

And I'll connect it to baptism of the dead later, probably as how you nit pick from Paul's writings. Not much more in that respect, I already have a golden example of your church not following a pre-apostasy commandment

It reminds me a lot of the early arguments against the Book of Mormon, "Gold Plates don't exist!", "He copied it from the Spaulding Manuscript!", then, "View of the Hebrews is definitely where it came from!", to first, "Sidney Rigdon came up with it!", then, "No it was Oliver Cowdery!".

LOL. Always flailing around with new so-called, "smoking guns" they come up with. They get debunked and they just move on. Joseph Smith had it right when he said that those who leave the church can't just leave it alone. It eats at them! The thought that, "maybe they were right, and I was wrong" gnaws at them constantly. The lack of the Spirit also haunts them, they long to prove it wrong so they can have some company to feel better in their endless misery.

"I know that the words of truth are hard against all uncleanness; but the righteous fear them not, for they love the truth and are not shaken." 2 Nephi 9:40

Nephi couldn't have said it better. The anti-mormons fear us, they fear us because deep down they know we're right. They know that they erred by leaving, yet that "one sin" was so tough to let go of - too tough to let go of, so instead of fighting it, they let it devour them inside. Now they've built up a wall around themselves and are endlessly bitter, they seek out the faithful, and just like Satan and his hosts, try to tear us down to their level.

CF, I think we would all be wise to recognize that among those who leave the Church are a lot of good people with very genuine concerns and issues, and some of those who go get carried away with attacking the Church and get labeled as anti-Mormons may have many motivations other than fear of us, guilt, or knowledge that we are actually right. In fact, I think very few think we are actually right. If any of you antis disagree, please let me know ASAP! That would make a fun podcast. :)

I do think the CF/Openminded dialog is getting a bit off track here, though I do participation the time, energy, and thought that both have put into sharing their views.

Doing a little more investigative work, I found that it was not uncommon to find Corinthian women of both upper and lower standing that did, indeed, shave their heads during the first century. This not only included prostitutes of pagan temples and slaves, but those following a custom of sexual inversions (men with long hair and women with short or shaved hair).

This also fulfills the prophecy of Isaiah 3:24 concerning women, "and instead of well set hair baldness". Would we be so surprised for Paul to actually fulfill the words of Isaiah and run into Christian female members clinging to pagan customs of head-shaving?

Also, it is interesting that Paul is so specific to the Corinthians about this topic, but yet when addressing the church in Ephesus, he only teaches about modesty in their dress (1 Timothy 2:9-10). This indicates that, perhaps, the issue of coverings was not as big a deal as he made it seem to the Corinthians.

But when it came to Baptisms for the Dead, he spoke in a manner so matter-of-fact, it seems that many were well aware of the practice. It indicates something far more widespread and uniform. And considering this practice far outlasted head-coverings, it seems to be so.

My theory for the contradiction in 1 Corinthians 11 (hair = cover or hair = something else) is that Paul was leaving a little more leeway on how "covered" a woman should be. In other words he's saying, "it is right to wear a separate covering, but hey, a nice full head of hair will work pretty darn well too".

Taking into account the open-ended nature of Paul's definition of a covering, and that he only spoke in detail of this to the Corinthians, it seems to me that the modern Church would be well within its boundaries.

Baptism though? THE first, and most critical saving ordinance of the Gospel? That's not something you mess around with, I'd rather be found in adherence to it, than not. What's the worst case scenario? We tried to follow the Bible too much concerning baptism for those beyond the grave? Goodness, how dare we?

CF, that's an interesting find that led me to do further research of my own into the matter (I wish I had your sources though! Had to Google around--but eventually found a few things which I'll mention soon).

First, when you say this:Also, it is interesting that Paul is so specific to the Corinthians about this topic, but yet when addressing the church in Ephesus, he only teaches about modesty in their dress (1 Timothy 2:9-10). This indicates that, perhaps, the issue of coverings was not as big a deal as he made it seem to the Corinthians.

I want you to know that your line of reasoning is exactly what I used against baptism of the dead: that because baptism is mentioned in so many other of his writings, is even present in the gospels, it appears as though this doctrine is not as big of a deal (which contrasts with what you and I would assume to be the level of importance a doctrine about salvation to be). I'm sure we don't need to discuss which verses talk about baptism, you said earlier that you had quite a few lined up just in case ;)

Anyways, I mentioned that first because the brunt of what I want to tell you about my research is that there's a lot of variety out there. A lot of statements are made in different bible commentaries from writers of different religious backgrounds, and as I was searching for the more distinguished commentators, I was worried about how you'd view their typically-agnostic or liberal nature.

As chance would have it (one that I'd probably consider a miracle if I were religious, but probably still do to some degree anyways), BYU made a publication on the matter that even makes comparisons to the Book of Abraham when discussing the validity of Paul's concept.

Google has a cached version of this webpage (meaning it's stored in Google's database) that I had to use instead of the real website (which I can't connect to for some reason), so I'm going to cite the book that the link cites, give you a link to Google's cached version (which I recommend read in text-only mode so it'll load quickly), and also provide some quotes that are relevant.

I hope I avoid Mormanity's spam filters when I post this link: text-only version of BYU web page. This will look messy, so use your browser's find function (ctrl+f) and type in "head covering". If you scroll up, you'll see the section is devoted to something more: "The Order of the Priesthood."

If this page doesnt come up at all, Google a copy of one of the quotes I list below and it should find the right page for you. Again, be sure to visit the cached version so you can see it.

Anyways.

Relevant quotes:

For head-coverings of males: "The Greek text literally says that a man should not pray with anything “hanging down from the head.”[31] In other words, it allows for a head covering as long as it doesn’t hang from his head as a veil does."

Head coverings (veiling) of women during prayer:The next verse states that “every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head” (11:5). Paul does not say that a woman can’t pray or prophesy. Instead he instructs how she should do it—with her head covered.

Older (and some modern) New Testament commentators claimed that this veiling of women was a sign of her subjection to man"

....

If modesty were the issue, it seems he would urge them to veil themselves whenever they were in public, but he specifically states that the covering is to be done when praying and prophesying.

....

So if veiling does not mean subjection nor is it merely a matter of modesty, what does it mean? Traditionally headgear has often served as a symbol of a person’s power.

....

As Morna D. Hooker points out, “The essential point for [Paul’s] argument is the contrast which he sees in [glory] between man and woman: it is on this contrast that the different regulations regarding head-coverings are based.”

....

Perhaps a woman wears a covering on her head while praying or prophesying as a symbol of the power she brings to the union with her husband—the reason she “is the glory of the man” (1 Corinthians 11:7).

(done quoting)

By now, we can see that even Sherrie Mills Johnson, who "is a part-time instructor of ancient scripture at Brigham Young University", just about as qualified of a commentator as I can get for your faith, agrees that the covering is a veil. And that the veil is a head covering that is not hair.

You may be wondering about what she thought of 1 cor 11:14-15, then. To quote and bolden the interesting points: Paul goes on to make another analogy that, while obscure to us, probably helped the Corinthians to better understand the meaning of the veiling and further substantiates that the veil could be a symbol of woman’s power to bear life. Paul equates the veil to women’s long hair.

As Paul explains, even nature concurs that woman’s long hair—like the veil—is a symbol of her power because men, who do not have the power to bear life, may lose their hair while women usually retain their hair (see 1 Corinthians 11:14)."

(done quoting)

If the words of a BYU scholar don't lead you to accepting the reality that Paul was discussing an actual veiling of a woman's head with headgear and not hair, then there's really nothing I can do from here on.

Seeing that these words come from someone who is, in fact, Mormon--and a scholar--then this is someone you should completely be able to trust.

Here you've given a voice to support your claim, yet even Sherrie Mills Johnson admits that, "Others have explained that Paul is urging women to maintain a standard of modesty defined by their culture.", which would explain why Paul did not confirm his epistle to the other churches. Also, even she follows up her reasoning with the following statement, confirming my position:

"Paul equates the veil to women’s long hair. In his Studies in Biblical and Semitic Symbolism, Maurice H. Farbridge uses biblical stories where hair plays an important role, such as the story of Sampson, to conclude that “hair, like blood, is a symbol of life.”[40] Paul seems to take for granted that the Corinthians understand this meaning. They knew that a shaved head could represent death or a misuse of a woman’s ability to give life and that long hair was a covering like a veil—a symbolic tribute to a woman’s power to give life. As Paul explains, even nature concurs that woman’s long hair—like the veil—is a symbol of her power because men, who do not have the power to bear life, may lose their hair while women usually retain their hair (see 1 Corinthians 11:14)."

How ironic that you use a BYU source to defend yourself, when even she admits that her opinion is far from unanimous.

While I believe that Paul made reference to a separate covering, I still have to disagree that Paul did not rule out hair itself as an adequate hair covering. There is simply a lack of specificity in the scripture to get anything more out of it than that.

It's confirmed that there was at least the possibility that Corinthian women were shaving their head at the time of Paul's epistle to them. That he didn't expound this to Ephesus tells me that he wasn't concerned about hair coverings with them.

And most importantly, Paul's ONLY reference to the actual definition of an adequate hair covering for a woman is defined in verse 15. Why would he be limiting hair coverings to veils only, if he was going to simply throw it out the window in verse 15? It doesn't make any sense, unless Paul had a more open mind on the subject than you give him credit for.

By the way, Jeff, I saw this NYT article today and thought it was interesting, per your remark, "anti-Mormons may have many motivations other than fear of us":

Why We Fear Mormons

"Anti-Mormon attacks by evangelicals have betrayed anxiety over the divisions in their movement and their slipping cultural authority as arbiters of religious authenticity."

There is no lack of specificity, and you ignored the entire rest of what the author said. There is nothing in her interpretation that leaves room for hair. Don't you realize how she opened the paragraph about this part?

"Paul goes on to make another analogy that, while obscure to us, probably helped the Corinthians to better understand the meaning of the veiling and further substantiates that the veil could be a symbol of woman’s power to bear life. Paul equates the veil to women’s long hair."

Hair is analogous to a veil. It is not a substitute for a veil, and in no way does Sherrie imply this when she describes the likeness of a veil to hair that Paul was using to further the fact that women need to cover their hair.

yet even Sherrie Mills Johnson admits that, "Others have explained that Paul is urging women to maintain a standard of modesty defined by their culture.",

Did you even read that in context? The next sentence: " This interpretation is based upon a later Jewish (Mishnaic) custom which stipulated that married women wear veils, and it is uncertain whether this applied at the time of Paul."

They're discussing why the wearing of veils was commanded by Paul.

" If modesty were the issue, it seems he would urge them to veil themselves whenever they were in public, but he specifically states that the covering is to be done when praying and prophesying"

The issue of veiling isn't up in the air. She makes no hint that it's up in the air, and you took a sentence completely out of context to try to make it seem like she admits her position is controversial or something.

Look at her appeal to headgear once again, this time using the Book of Abraham facsimiles: "Traditionally headgear has often served as a symbol of a person’s power. In facsimile 3 of the book of Abraham, we are told that Abraham’s headgear represents the priesthood and is “emblematical of the grand Presidency in Heaven.”"

And how she describes the necessity of this practice because of the angels:"Angels were traditionally considered to be the protectors of the eternal order of the heavens. As F. F. Bruce explains, “She should keep her head covered because of the angels, who are guardians of the created order.”[38]"

And look how she treats your last bit of breathing room, once again:

"Paul goes on to make another analogy that, while obscure to us, probably helped the Corinthians to better understand the meaning of the veiling and further substantiates that the veil could be a symbol of woman’s power to bear life. Paul equates the veil to women’s long hair."

Paul is making an analogy out of hair. The text shouts it at you, but you've been pretending otherwise. Paul is using nature to affirm that covering the head is so reasonable, that even nature wants to cover the head of a woman.

And understand that this is only during prayer or prophesying. So what, is Paul saying "have long hair--but feel free to cut it off afterwards, so long as you come back with it"? No.

Do you still not see what Sherrie is trying to say? That she is not implying that she's the only one saying it? That Paul's analogy with hair is just an analogy?

After Googling, Sherrie isn't hte only one who published something to BYU's Religious Studies Center that confirms head coverings. From this cached version of the link, we get this quote:

"Most Christians in Corinth, regardless of their background, would have had similar feelings about the hair and veiling of women. Long hair was an expected sign of femininity, and covering it could be a sign of modesty and reverence, while cutting it was a sign of disgrace."

"Most Christians in Corinth, regardless of their background, would have had similar feelings about the hair and veiling of women. Long hair was an expected sign of femininity, and covering it could be a sign of modesty and reverence, while cutting it was a sign of disgrace."

And most Mormons don't wear more than one ear piercing, nor are most Mormons living in homosexual sexual relationships, nor are most Mormons smoking, nor are most Mormons stealing. That doesn't stop the leaders of the Church to speak out against it, though, as Paul did to the Christians in Corinth.

And it also says nothing about why it would be wrong to keep the hair in the first place as a covering.

"Long hair was an expected sign of femininity, and covering it could be a sign of modesty and reverence, while cutting it was a sign of disgrace."This is the main point of the quote: that he's saying how covering the hair is a way of being reverent (which is what Paul is trying to make them be).

"And it also says nothing about why it would be wrong to keep the hair in the first place as a covering"

Because hair is not a head covering. There's nothing that supports hair being a head covering in either of these two links.

And I just destroyed whatever nonsense you thought Sherrie was saying in her post about hair, which as it turned out, she was pointing out what you thought was a definition turned out to be an analogy.

Also, here's a reason why hair is wrong as a head covering: every reason why headgear is necessary to cover the head. Do you need me to repeat what Sherrie said? Do you need more sources? That you'd go against what a non-"heathen" Mormon says about the situation when she also happens to be a scholar is telling.

It is clear from both of these writings by Mormon scholars that the head covering is not hair. That what you thought was a "definition" is actually just an analogy.

Do you realize that the only way you could possibly interpret hair as a head covering is if that analogy was actually a definition?

And yet you stick to your guns, as if you have any.

You don't have any.

Why are you being so closed off to what these Mormon scholars are saying?

It seems to me that we're talking an awful lot here about arbitrary social conventions, and not very much about objective moral truths. Surely God cares more about whether one is a fundamentally moral person, than with the length of one's hair?

Does Paul ever tell anyone "Hey, I don't care whether or not you conform to your society's socially constructed codes of femininity. What's important is that you love your neighbor as yourself"?

Eveningsun has it right. What you're missing, Closeminded, is the greater point here. Paul's requirement for hair coverings to the Corinthians and his requirement for modest clothing to Ephesus point to a much broader requirement of keeping true to basic Christian values of modesty that fit in with each nation state's cultural norms of the time.

Can you honestly tell me that you disagree with that?

Your sources do not prove anything other than your weak attempt to discredit baptism for the dead. Sherrie MJ explains that long hair, for Paul, was an equivalency to a veil. Eric Huntsman describes that many in Corinth believed a covering was proper for women, and Paul states that this covering is clearly defined as hair in verse 15.

What am I missing here? Again, throw out all of your quotes by LDS scholars (whose opinion I'm just sure you esteem so highly), and give me the verse that states that a women's covering is "headgear", or a "veil", etc. I have verse 15, what do you have?

Eveningsun,This is the level of importance Paul puts this subject on, as stated in the final verse of this passage: "But if one is inclined to be contentious, we have no other practice, nor have the churches of God."

Also, the subject isn't about the length of one's hair. It's about covering the head, with a lot of the reasoning laid out by the LDS scholar I've cited.

I don't think CF even read the part where Sherrie points out the equivalency is just an analogy.

Honestly, I don't think it's possible for him to comprehend such a statement. Half the things I said go right over his head like they didn't exist in the first place.

CF: according to Sherrie, verse 15 is an analogy. Why are you so opposed to this? She explains the entire thing as an analogy, as I pointed out earlier. Did you even read this?

Also, the subject isn't about the length of one's hair. It's about covering the head, with a lot of the reasoning laid out by the LDS scholar I've cited.

Actually, it's about the length of one's hair laid out in the very LDS scholars you cited. All of them pointed to hair length being an appropriate covering for women. YOU decided that, "Oh that's just an analogy". I'm seriously laughing to myself as I write this, the way that you insert your own phrases and lines into the writings of others is absolutely hilarious. Do you ever go back and read what you write and not see how much you are making things up!?

Look, nobody on this thread has agreed with you. The scholars you cite don't agree with you. Paul doesn't even agree with you. I asked you a couple questions in my last post, but you avoid them. Again, do you disagree with the statement that Paul was preaching about general personal modesty to the early Christians, and not specifically to hair coverings? I can't find a single scholar, anywhere that doesn't believe that.

The funniest thing here is that you are not only attacking the LDS Church on this, but the entire Christian world. I could go find a thousand Evangelicals who will stand by me on this one. Seriously, if you are going to try to denounce baptism for the dead, wouldn't it be wise to pick a topic and position that the rest of the non-Mormon community agrees with you on??? You're argument is not only stupidly weak, but it's an argument that no other Christians actually believe in either.

And we're all still patiently waiting for the evidence pointing to something other than hair as the covering from the scriptures to back-up your claims. I have verse 15, what do you have?

Closeminded, you're a troll. Through and through. You have no argument to back yourself up, just a contentious voice to stir things up. Look at the goal posts you've moved in this thread - first it was "baptism for the dead wasn't widespread". When I proved you wrong, you moved onto male hair coverings. When I proved you wrong there, and now youve moved onto female hair coverings. You're a very, very small person, trying to hold out against overwhelming evidence that disproves your arguments.

Like I've been saying all along, the problem with you is that you have simply closed your mind to these facts. You dodge questions, you change subjects (remember once upon a time this thread was about baptism for the dead??), and you divert to other realms that you feel are more defensible. You are trying desperately to feel like you have the upper hand, when nobody else is on your side any more.

1) baptism of the dead spread to the church in corinth and a gnostic sect known as the Marcionites. That's not very widespread, you just refuse to see it as limited. Can't help how you interpret things, but two separate Christian churches--one being an entirely different breed of Christianity, doesn't sound like "widespread". It sounds like a cultural offshoot.

2) you said, "YOU decided that, "Oh that's just an analogy". I'm seriously laughing to myself as I write this, the way that you insert your own phrases and lines into the writings of others is absolutely hilarious. Do you ever go back and read what you write and not see how much you are making things up!?"

I didn't make it up. You must've missed an entire comment I wrote. Here's what I quoted from Sherrie to show that she was pointing out the part where Paul is using an analogy:

"Paul goes on to make another analogy that, while obscure to us, probably helped the Corinthians to better understand the meaning of the veiling and further substantiates that the veil could be a symbol of woman’s power to bear life. Paul equates the veil to women’s long hair."

As you refused to see earlier, Sherrie states that Paul is making an analogy. One that furthers Corinthian understanding about the meaning of the veil. She then States that this analogy is Paul equating the veil to women's long hair.

Are you still in denial now? Sherrie agrees with the interpretation that the covering is headgear, which she supports with more than a few paragraphs of evidence and qualifications for why this would be so. I wrote posted these, actually. Did you read them?

1) baptism of the dead spread to the church in corinth and a gnostic sect known as the Marcionites. That's not very widespread, you just refuse to see it as limited. Can't help how you interpret things, but two separate Christian churches--one being an entirely different breed of Christianity, doesn't sound like "widespread". It sounds like a cultural offshoot

False. Baptisms for the Dead was widely practiced during Paul's time, and continued to be widely practiced among many Christian sects for 700 years.

"Paul goes on to make another analogy that, while obscure to us, probably helped the Corinthians to better understand the meaning of the veiling and further substantiates that the veil could be a symbol of woman’s power to bear life. Paul equates the veil to women’s long hair."

Is your reading comprehension really that poor? Sherrie is talking about an analogy that "VEILING IS A SYMBOL OF A WOMAN'S POWER TO BEAR LIFE". Hello? Anyone in there Closeminded? The analogy that Sherrie points out has nothing to do with Paul's equating of veils to a woman's long hair, but the analogy of a woman's veil as life-bearing power.

Again, I keep asking and you keep ignoring it: "do you disagree with the statement that Paul was preaching about general personal modesty to the early Christians, and not specifically to hair coverings? I can't find a single scholar, anywhere that doesn't believe that."

A yes or no answer, Closeminded. Let's hear it. I've never heard a single Christian outside your own closeminded brain that disagrees with that. So are you telling me that you are going to go against mainstream thought on this topic and disagree with that? Put up or shut up.

Similarity in some respects between things that are otherwise dissimilar.

Why would Paul be making an analogy between two things that serve the exact same purpose? Hair and veils, literally are hair coverings. People most often make analogies between something that is material and something that is immaterial.

Example:"Life is like a box of chocolate, you never know what you're gonna get"

We're being taught something important here.

Some more analogies:"She was quiet as a mouse""I feel like a fish out of water"

What makes more sense:A)"Hair coverings are an analogy of a woman's ability to bring forth life."

B)"Hair is an analogy of veils."

The latter is completely ridiculous.

Do you honestly believe that 1 Corinth 11: 15 is an analogy? That long hair really isn't acceptable as a covering?"But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering." 1 Corinth 11:15

"Is your reading comprehension really that poor? Sherrie is talking about an analogy that "VEILING IS A SYMBOL OF A WOMAN'S POWER TO BEAR LIFE". Hello? Anyone in there Closeminded? The analogy that Sherrie points out has nothing to do with Paul's equating of veils to a woman's long hair, but the analogy of a woman's veil as life-bearing power."

Reading comprehension's just fine. Let's see how yours is holding up. In fact, let's test it against the last sentence she writes about the matter:

As Paul explains, even nature concurs that woman’s long hair—like the veil—is a symbol of her power because men, who do not have the power to bear life, may lose their hair while women usually retain their hair (see 1 Corinthians 11:14).

So, using your logic presented here:Some more analogies:"She was quiet as a mouse""I feel like a fish out of water"

We see that when Sherrie says "that woman’s long hair—like the veil", she isn't saying "long hair is a veil" she's saying, like you said "I feel like a fish out of water" without saying you are a fish out of water, that "woman’s long hair—like the veil" means that long hair is not a veil.

We can see that Sherrie indeed agrees with me that Paul is using an analogy when Paul equates long hair to a veil.

Long hair "was a covering like a veil—a symbolic tribute to a woman’s power to give life", as Sherrie relates earlier. That she never mentions how long hair is a veil, and only says hair is like a veil, it's clear that she holds it as an analogy.

Or, as I said earlier in the comments:"The alternative interpretation of 11:15 takes into account that that verse is part of a larger sentence:

"Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him, 15 but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her? For her hair is given to her for a covering."

Paul is saying that even nature understands that women need a natural covering for their head, so of course "the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head" (11:10) during prayer and prophesying.

He's not saying the issue is taken care of, "so just be sure to stop shaving your heads all the time".

This interpretation can only make sense if the part about hair is an analogy, which Sherrie and a lot of historical Christianity (even Christian groups today) agrees with.

"False. Baptisms for the Dead was widely practiced during Paul's time, and continued to be widely practiced among many Christian sects for 700 years."

Prove it. I bet everyone of them except for the Marcionites (and maybe even them) that practiced it are part of a pagan culture that practiced it first. And just like in Corinth, we'd see that baptism of the dead was a cultural practice instead of a commandment.

You already took a swipe at head coverings by saying they aren't mentioned when Paul tells Timothy how to run the church. So it must be a cultural thing, you went on to say.

I'm sure you remember how I then asked you about all the times baptism is mentioned in the bible. Weird how baptism of the dead isn't mentioned either.

even nature concurs that woman’s long hair—like the veil—is a symbol of her power

Anyone reading that line understands that she is equating long hair and the veil to a symbol of her power. She is not using long hair to make any equivalence to a veil.

Why can't you understand this? I'm shocked at how much you can take a phrase and twist it to suit your own argument. There is NOTHING here that indicates that Sherrie is trying to use long hair as a symbol for a veil. It's a SYMBOL OF HER POWER. Read. The. Words.

You are truly awe-inspiring to me, Closeminded. Most anti-mormons put up more of a fight, using logic and reason to defend themselves. You have a brazen lack of both. You divert, you move goal posts, you change subjects. Even when you've lost, you continue on like a fool who doesn't know when to quit.

Prove it. I bet everyone of them except for the Marcionites (and maybe even them) that practiced it are part of a pagan culture that practiced it first. And just like in Corinth, we'd see that baptism of the dead was a cultural practice instead of a commandment.

LOL! You just proved it yourself by using the Marcionites as an example!!! The Marcionites are a great example of the scattered truths that many early Christian sects held. They each held some of the truths, but not a one had all the truth as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints has today. Your argument is silly. Think about what you're saying. If you were a Catholic, you would be trying to disprove baptism by immersion by discrediting the Baptist Church. If you were a Jehovah's Witness, you would be trying to discredit Mormons by calling out the Catholics for divine leadership.

If you want more proof than that, see my list of quotes above. You discredit my proof because it has been echoed by FAIR LDS. So, some proof works for you, but only if it comes from the organization of your choosing. Love your guidelines there.

Do you not see the ridiculousness in your assertion? You can't claim that my church is false simply by discrediting another past organization because they made use of the same practice, no matter how misled their other beliefs were.

You already took a swipe at head coverings by saying they aren't mentioned when Paul tells Timothy how to run the church. So it must be a cultural thing, you went on to say.

Yes!! Now you're getting it! But it's not just me. This is the argument that 99.9% of Christians use for this passage of Corinthians. You are in the minority on this. Hair coverings such as veils were simply not important to the early church as a whole. This doctrine is simply not congruent with the doctrines being taught to the rest of the early church. But baptism WAS! We know it was because this doctrine persisted for hundreds of years among the early church and it's separate sects, unlike hair coverings.

I'm sure you remember how I then asked you about all the times baptism is mentioned in the bible. Weird how baptism of the dead isn't mentioned either..

Oh, so now you want to change the subject, again, to the number of times baptism for the dead was mentioned in the bible??? Okay, let's go there, Closeminded. This, I'm really going to love!

Since Jesus commands all men to be baptized to enter the kingdom of God, I'd say I could find the requirement in over 100 places in the New Testament. Can you show me a place in the Bible where baptism is not required for dead men?

In the Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 4, p.645, the practice of baptism for the dead is referred to this way, "But it is probable that the practice in question (baptism for the dead) was something in itself legitimate to which the Apostle (Paul) gives his tactic approbation". Henry Alford, long-time Dean of Canterbury also wrote that the practice is legitimate.

What I am commenting about is an old post where someone is going on and on about women not covering their heads in the LDS church.... CF said that, not having her head shaved was honoring the "covering of the head" and therefore not a violation of any commandment....well, I think that could have been said better because the troll clearly didn't understand. 1 Corinthians 11:13 JUDGE FOR YOURSELVES: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? 15 But if a woman have long hair, IT IS A GLORY TO HER: FOR HER HAIR IS GIVEN HER FOR A COVERING. LDS women do not cover their heads in Sunday services when they pray. But, both men and women do cover their heads in the Temple.